claim form

Umkomaas

YET ANOTHER ROUND OF ABUSE

Is there an emerging pattern then? Is there a common denominator?

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is there an emerging pattern then? Is there a common denominator?

never for abuse

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

never for abuse

Another post you seemingly fail to understand.

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Another post you seemingly fail to understand.

be a good person

Redx

beamerguy wrote: »

AH HA, so one message to two people ? No wonder it is confused.com ....... never seen that before but hey, good manners never goes amiss ? No wonder newbies vanish here

I read it last night and like the others I was not confused

you are not the OP, so the PM was to the OP because as I was hoping last night, HO87 saw this thread and sent a pm to the OP (not you) because HO87 has helped to prepare and win several other similar cases reported by prankster and on here (clearly you didnt read that part of those blogs)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-lose-in-court-fail-to.html

in this thread you are NOT the OP

but in this thread you are the OP

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5395333

frankly, you shoud apologise to this OP for hijacking his thread and taking it "off piste"

all the other posters knew what was meant and most of them know why HO87 replied and said he had sent the OP a pm and he is greatly experienced in these matters having prepared court papers etc for several live cases

a shame you did not let it lie as your ego has now made a dogs breakfast of this thread which could harm this NEWBIE (the OP) who is being taken to court (unlike you) and was offered help by pm from somebody who knows the score

apologise and duck out of the thread and leave it to the OP and to HO87 to sort out privately

you only have to look at post #2 to see that I was polite to this newbie (the OP) and I gave the OP the info he needed apart from the name of the member here who has helped prepare those other cases, leaving it to HO87 to deal with as he is better placed than the rest of us in hammering MIL collections on these court claims

you should have done the same and bowed out at post #4 , like I did at post #3

the rest is egotistical

beamerguy

Redx wrote: »

I read it last night and like the others I was not confused

you are not the OP, so the PM was to the OP because as I was hoping last night, HO87 saw this thread and sent a pm to the OP (not you) because HO87 has helped to prepare and win several other similar cases reported by prankster and on here (clearly you didnt read that part of those blogs)

in this thread you are NOT the OP

but in this thread you are the OP

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5395333

frankly, you whoud,a poplogise to this OP for hijacking his thread and taking it "off piste"

all the other posters knew what was meant and most of them know why HO87 replied and said he had sent the OP a pm

a shame you did not let it lie as your ego has now made a dogs breakfast of this thread which could harm this NEWBIES (the OP) who is being taken to court (unlike you)

apologise and duck out of the thread and leave it to the OP and to HO87 to sort out privately

It all started because I said " I did not receive the PM"
All that was needed at that point is for someone to nicely explain something i clearly misread.
The abuse thereafter was totally against Forum Etiquette
which is not in the interests of this forum or to newbies who already complain about rudeness.

The thread was not hijacked. I agreed with you by saying
"yes, follow what redx has said. this is the prankster site about MIL" and continued by talking about debt collectors etc.

The next post after mine was from HO87 and I misread it that I thought he had sent me a PM. Hence me saying PM not received.
A simple enough statement that could have been answered simply.
Instead you know what followed ???

I am civil towards others as is expected but as everyone can see, others do not follow the rules

Redx

yes you did agree with me and should have left it there like I did, but you chose to carry it on this morning which in no way helps the OP and has hijacked the thread starting today, this thread is not here to educate you on forum etiquette or use

the other members have pointed out your errors in no uncertain terms, take it on the chin and move on, and note I have not been disrespectful either, no abuse, but you really need to stop digging and accept you made a mistake with your post this morning which acted as bait , people expect an experienced forum poster to know what is going on, or stay out of it

this was not abusive in any way, nor the few posts after it either

Umkomaas wrote: »

The PM was sent to the OP!

HO87 has a mention in here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-lose-in-court-fail-to.html , attention to detail would have helped and this isnt the first time we have had words about "attention to detail" as you didnt "see the light" a few weeks ago on some other issue that the rest of us clearly knew about

like I said, apologise to the OP and let it lie, bow out gracefully and try to see that some stuff goes on behind the scenes and you dont argue with somebody who has prepared court papers and won against MIL collections (HO87)

beamerguy

Redx wrote: »

yes you did agree with me and should have left it there like I did, but you chose to carry it on this morning which in no way helps the OP

the other members have pointed out your errors in no uncertain terms, take it on the chin and move on, and note I have not been disrespectful either, no abuse, but you really need to stop digging and accept you made a mistake with your post this morning which acted as bait , people expect an experienced forum poster to know what is going on, or stay out of it

HO87 has a mention in here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-lose-in-court-fail-to.html , attention to detail would have helped and this isnt the first time we have had words about "attention to detail" as you didnt "see the light" a few weeks ago on some other issue that the rest of us clearly knew about

like I said, apologise to the OP and let it lie, bow out gracefully and try to see that some stuff goes on behind the scenes and you dont argue with somebody who has prepared court papers and won against MIL collections (HO87)

You, I respect you as you do not abuse.

I cannot accept by saying " I did not receive a PM" acted as bait ?

Where does arguing with HO87 come into it, I said nothing to him apart from

"Your PM has not arrived.
As I have used Administration of Justice Act in the same circumstances as described on Peppipoo with success, please explain why it is irrelevant"

That was a question ?

HO87

beamerguy wrote: »

As I have used Administration of Justice Act in the same circumstances as described on Peppipoo with success, please explain why it is irrelevant"

That was a question ?

Firstly, with respect beamerguy, I seriously doubt that the matter you were involved really amounts to "the same circumstances" or that you have "used" the Act in anything other than a letter.

MIL may well be a debt collection agency but are currently using what is a unique approach (which means that no other company is doing the same) and in issuing proceedings are acting not as a debt collector but as the original creditor. They are doing so by using what they claim are properly constituted assignments. This means real legal assignments not what some DCA's refer to as assignments when what they actually mean is instructions. There is a distinct difference.

MIL are therefore not acting as debt collectors (that is as an external company collecting the debt of another) they are collecting their own debts and doing so by writing a maximum of two letters - including one which is a letter before action and then moving straight to court proceedings. Whether we like it or not this isn't going to amount to a s.40 offence - and in any event with the passing into law of the Protection from Harassment Act as recently as 1997 there is a far better tool to be used by way of s.2 of that act - with its civil remedy. Hence my point that the Administration of Justice Act is all but irrelevant.

If you would like to do a little reading about how effective the Protection from Harassment Act can be then you could always research the case of Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading which was an entirely civil action. Harassment does not have to be dealt with by the police.

MIL have been defeated at each and every defended hearing so far and although I normally shy away from blowing my own trumpet I wrote each of those defences. Far be it from me to say so but I think I might just have a reasonable handle on what they are doing.

Google is your friend - and PePiPoo is a good place to start if you want to read up on the matter.

Finally, it is generally good form not to discuss at length on the open forum cases where defences are going to be prepared. Not that I am too concerned about what the likes of MIL might get to learn but rather more importantly because judges generally don't like to think they are the last people to see them.

And for goodness sake stop hijacking other peoples threads.

beamerguy

HO87 wrote: »

Firstly, with respect beamerguy, I seriously doubt that the matter you were involved really amounts to "the same circumstances" or that you have "used" the Act in anything other than a letter.

MIL may well be a debt collection agency but are currently using what is a unique approach (which means that no other company is doing the same) and in issuing proceedings are acting not as a debt collector but as the original creditor. They are doing so by using what they claim are properly constituted assignments. This means real legal assignments not what some DCA's refer to as assignments when what they actually mean is instructions. There is a distinct difference.

MIL are therefore not acting as debt collectors (that is as an external company collecting the debt of another) they are collecting their own debts and doing so by writing a maximum of two letters - including one which is a letter before action and then moving straight to court proceedings. Whether we like it or not this isn't going to amount to a s.40 offence - and in any event with the passing into law of the Protection from Harassment Act as recently as 1997 there is a far better tool to be used by way of s.2 of that act - with its civil remedy. Hence my point that the Administration of Justice Act is all but irrelevant.

If you would like to do a little reading about how effective the Protection from Harassment Act can be then you could always research the case of Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading which was an entirely civil action. Harassment does not have to be dealt with by the police.

MIL have been defeated at each and every defended hearing so far and although I normally shy away from blowing my own trumpet I wrote each of those defences. Far be it from me to say so but I think I might just have a reasonable handle on what they are doing.

Google is your friend - and PePiPoo is a good place to start if you want to read up on the matter.

Finally, it is generally good form not to discuss at length on the open forum cases where defences are going to be prepared. Not that I am too concerned about what the likes of MIL might get to learn but rather more importantly because judges generally don't like to think they are the last people to see them.

Thank you, the most sensible reply so far.

You are correct in saying that my dealings with this act are indeed by letters which have been successful for the number of people I have helped. From what you are saying about MIL, in my cases it was a debt collector as a separate entity, and not you describe as a sheep with two heads.

I thank you for making it very clear about MIL to which I did not know and I guess most people don't
I agree that just 2 letters from them is not going to amount to a s.40 offence.

My reference to all of this is about the debt collectors who are persistent in sending volumes of letters

I have read the Protection from Harassment Act as recently as 1997 and s.2. and did wonder if this was more effective, you are saying it is.

I am pleased that your input has meant that MIL has failed and you should blow your own trumpet for success.

Again thank you for your information, new to me and no doubt every newbie